WASHINGTON (CN) — Two Supreme Court justices criticized their colleagues Friday for turning down an eminent-domain case in which Chicago allowed the largest cocoa processor in North America to take over one man's land.
"Failure to step in today not only disserves the Constitution and our precedent, but also leaves in place a legal regime that benefits 'those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Attorneys for Chicago meanwhile lauded Friday's outcome.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court declined to review the case," a spokeswoman in the law department said in a statement. "The city's action was consistent with what the government can do regarding the taking of property only for a public use."
The case here erupted after the Blommer Chocolate Co., a $750 million behemoth that is the continent's largest supplier of ingredient chocolate, tried to buy land near its factory in the River West neighborhood of Chicago.
When landowner Fred Eychaner refused to sell for $824,980, the city stepped in on the basis that Blommer needed the land to prevent it from potentially becoming "a blighted area."
An Illinois appeals court backed the city, but Thomas said the case presents an opportunity to correct bad precedent, namely the 2005 decision Kelo v. New London.
"Chicago has decided to use the coercive power of the government to give the company a valuable parcel of not-yet-blighted-land," he wrote. "According to the court below, this forcible transaction is permissible, in part, because 'recognizing the difference between a valid public use and a sham can be challenging.' I think that, if our doctrine makes it difficult to discern public use from private favors, we should grant certiorari to provide some much needed clarity."
Wilkinson Stekloff attorney Kosta Stanko Stojilkovic represents Eychaner.
"The Constitution says that property can only be taken 'for public use,'" Stojilkovic said in an email. "We are extremely disappointed that the Supreme Court has denied our petition and allowed our client’s land to be taken in violation of that limitation, for the benefit of a politically powerful company."
Of Kelo, Thomas notes: "That decision was wrong the day it was decided. And it remains wrong today."
"Taking land from one private party to give to another rarely will be for 'public use,'" Thomas continued, later calling it wrong to "stand by as lower courts further dismantle constitutional safeguards."
Follow @bleonardcns
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
